Rose, don't get me wrong, you are not alone in your carelessness with the English language, but this piece had just so many solecisms per square inch, I was forced to grab myself an identity and complain.

"Exactly who are we protecting" - the word is whom.

"what criteria factored into that decision" - criteria don't 'factor in', people do.

"an arbitrary chronological barometer" - are you describing a barometer that is arbitrarily chronological, or a chronological barometer that is arbitrary? Neither way makes any sense.

"irregardless" - no such word.

"By his reckoning, the whole question of consent lay solely in the female’s ability to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, should it occur. Ironically, it never occurred to me to gauge it that way." - there's no irony here. Surprise, perhaps, but no irony.

Sadly, few people care any longer whether they use language correctly or not, with the result that communication becomes merely approximate, near enough being good enough for most. A journalist, to whom words are a critical tool of trade, should surely set higher standards. After all, if you lower the bar too far, any old correspondent to this forum could do your job equally well.

Rose, your "no answers" honesty is really opening the doors to those who think they have all the answers.

I have some different views on aspects of this topic to yours and suspect that almost every reader will do so. I did appreciate reading an article which recognised shades of grey.

I can't mindread for the Liberal party. I do suspect that like many in the community they may struggle with a difference between acceptance of an individuals right to choose a homosexual lifestyle and endorsing that lifestyle as a good thing.

In that context a decision to engage in homosexual sexual activity is easy to see as a decision requiring greater maturity than a decision regarding heterosexual sexual activity.

Maybe in the same way a parent broadens the scope of the decisions a child is allowed to make as they get older. There are things my son cannot choose to do now which he may choose for himself when he is older.

Nonsence if you happen to believe that homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality (other than the obvious).

Pete
Language (or what I love about it) is a dynamic art form, accept that things will change. The writer puts her point across very well-at least she can spell, punctuate and pull a coherent sentance together.
And by the way, why can't people who don't have the archaic grasp of "ye olde Englishe" have a point of view and express it here? It's this form of elitist bigotry that keeps the "average" interested person out of vital debates such as this one.
Schools stopped teaching grammar proper a very long time ago. I suggest that you get over it or start to become more and more frustrated as the current crop of youngsters start to voice their opinions.

Rose, keep telling it like you see it. Maybe part of the answer of the homosexual age difference is that legislators can not see homosexual love as normal, natural and not learned. Maybe it's because they see it as something that is a naturally aberrant behaviour (goes against our so called natural urge to procreate)and will go away if you ignore it? Or can't they bring themselves to picture their own sons having a same sex relationship?
Just a thought.

Nita, yours is the standard response of the "near enough is good enough" mentality, that degrades everything it touches.

There is nothing "Ye Olde" about doing things well, it simply takes more effort than most people seem to be prepared to invest, even in the simplest matters.

I have absolutely no problem with correspondents who haven't had the experience with the language that enables them to get all the rules right or spell everything correctly. My concern was that a journalist, whose tools of trade are words, and whose ability to string them together is an important part of communicating effectively, can produce such a sloppy piece of work.

Language is not in itself an art form. It can be turned into one - literature - by skilled practitioners, but in its natural form it is a scientific instrument. Of course it evolves, but normal evolution involves improvement and expansion, not degradation and contraction.

The "current crop of youngsters" are ill-served by the example set by careless journalists. Pouring scorn on those who believe they will actually benefit from these skills does them a disservice too - they will take your example to mean they don't have to bother, and they won't.

Meanwhile to our north, a quarter of a billion people are taking the trouble to learn English properly. The reason they are making this effort is that they see language skills as an essential part of their competitive positioning. No elitist bigotry there, just hard-headed business acumen.

Rose raises many good points - regardless of any nit-picking in regard to her grammar. It is especially important that she points out that there should be no difference in the protection and support afforded to youth of any gender (male/female/intergender) at the age of consent. Anyone with an honest and open mind and with even a smidgen of life experience must know that same gender attraction is NORMAL. It may not be as commonly expressed as opposite gender attraction, but it is no less innate and natural - and seldom "chosen". The only moral "choice" is whether or not to be honest with family, friends and workmates - instead of pretending to be either sexless or heterosexual.

The term "homosexual lifestyle" is as uselessly definitive as "religious fanatic" - but one certainly makes a choice when embracing extremes of fashion or displaying wanton bigotry.

The legal age of consent should be the benchmark for all youth to have access to all information and support that they might reasonably need in order to protect their sexual health as well as their emotional health. All youth should have equal; support and protection at the same age. In Queensland, however, we have the only Sodomy Law in Australia and that law effectively blocks the delivery of safe sex education for 16 and 17 year olds. The age of consent is 16, but a separate law bans anal intercourse until 18. The Sodomy Law was enacted when sex between men was “decriminalised” in 1990 and was clearly meant to limit sexual activities for male youth (though it is an equally common heterosexual activity).

Attorney General Rod Welford will tell you that the Sodomy Law is not discriminatory, because it applies to all persons, whether they are male or female – but the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commissioner says that it is equally wrong that the law discriminates against 16 and 17 year olds. Unfortunately she cannot force reform of State laws and the Beattie Government seems content to let youth remain at risk while they maintain a vote-winning veneer of Bjelke-Petersen style conservatism

Pete

I will take your criticisms on board - bad spelling is a pet peeve of mine also. Your unsolicited dissertation of my noun usage was indeed a gift of kindness. I think your comments may have been better directed to me personally - I am readily contactable via the links on the page of the article in question - or directed at the editor, who has the arduous job of making my copy fit to print.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that this section of the website is reserved for comments about the substance of articles, not the writing style. After all, this is "Online Opinion" not "Online Scholar".

For the record, I left school in Year 10. I have no degree, save for a diploma from the school of hard knocks. I don't often refer to myself as a 'journalist' per se. Online Opinion appreciate my candour and unabashed penchant for 'touchy' subjects, as have the many other magazine and newspaper editors who/whom (I'm really not sure which) have published my work in the past 13 years. I share your desire to preserve the English language - but I have not the time, nor the resources to educate myself more thoroughly. I do get by - lucky for me, some people care more about the pictures that I paint, than the frames in which they are mounted. As some clever bloke once said "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story." Don't get caught up in petty trivialities Pete. Write your own article on English usage and leave the rest of us to our ill-worded opinion forums.

Please, keep fighting your good fight and Godspeed to you. I'll do my best to remain honest and forthright in my approach - and find the best possible manner to express that. Perhaps you might see fit to indulge ignoramuses like me just a little, for the greater good. Don't shoot the messenger - I do mean well, you know.
Best regards
Rose Cooper

Rose, what a sweet and utterly disarming response to my verbal dyspepsia.

However I would point out that the key issue here is not academic; you do yourself, and your readers, a disservice by obscuring your message with poor usage of the language. It is like hearing your favourite piece of music being murdered by poor musicians. You know that the beauty is there somewhere, but it is temporarily inaccessible.

Just for the record, I haven't been to university either. This is not a crusade to keep the language pure, whatever that might mean. But if we don't take proper care of it, its value will diminish. The reason I took a swipe at you was not to lecture you, but to point out that people who use words professionally should take better care of their tools of trade.

And since you quote Khalil Gibran, take another look through The Prophet, and bear in mind that he wrote it in English. Then remind yourself that he was born in poverty, didn't have any formal education, and didn't start learning the language until he was twelve.

The age of consent is an issue that I have pondered many times over recent years.

It wasn't until the age of 26 that I accepted my sexual orientation as a gay man, lost my virginity and then shortly after fell in love with a man nearly 10 years my senior. That relationship lasted about 8 years.

Now some 10 years later and one year into my second same-sex relationship it is now with a man who is now 22, some 13 years my junior.

In neither case was the age difference between my partner and me a concern to either of us. The important part was that there was mutual love, attraction and respect.

Now, over the years I have met a number of people who have engaged in consensual same-sex relations, where one party was near (either side of) the legal age of consent and the other party was several years or more above it. In all of these cases, to the best of my knowledge, both parties engaged in sex more than willingly and definitely without coercion.

Over the years I have had conversations with males under the age of consent who had frequently sought sex with men well above their own age. They told me they did this because that is what they wanted and often went to lengths to achieve this.

I believe sexually mature teenagers should be consulted to determine what is best for them. Clearly this is not a sitation where "one size fits all" as we all mature sexually and emotionally at different ages.

My 2c.

Pete,

I wasn't quoting Kellog Allbran,it was "Anonymous" who wrote Desiderata a few hundred years ago. I appreciate your point of view re: English, but you still haven't uttered a syllable on the subject at hand, which quite frankly cracks me up.

Mikey,

There will always be young people that seek sex with older people. The younger person's desire for sex isn't really the issue. When the age gap is HUGE and the young person is barely 16 then it really is the responsibility of the much older person to be more selflessly motivated. Young people (particularly young men) are easy pickings and emotionally impressionable - and as a love match, the balance of power is uneven. What we can do, and what we should do is up to our own conscience and values systems. I wouldn't feel overly proud of myself for bedding a sixteen year old boy - although there is no question that I could, if I wanted to.

Rose

After reading Rose's article and comments posted regarding her use of the English language, my own 2c is that it is a very well rounded article that pushes no particular political, moral or religious barrow (refreshing change) Well written and articulate, certainly, whose occasional grammatical slips do not obscure the message and do not make it sloppy. Rose's comments back to the particular critic are extremely entertaining. Stop trying to score points off her Peter, you may be more literate, but not half as witty and clever with words as she is. Which is why she is using the tools of her trade very well indeed.
Di

Omnes,

the age of consent debate is meaningless outside of its context - marriage!

Nothing can regulate sexual activity outside of (societal & or personal) norms relating to sexuality & marital fidelity. Illicit / illegal sex will always be found outside of faithful monogamous heterosexual marriage.

What a crock Reality Check, so i suppose that as gay persons aren't allowed to legally marry, that means the age debate doesn't even come into it for you. What next, a diatribe about gays? Or do you support the fact that they should be allowed to marry and therefore save themselves the damnation of illegal/illicit sex? Remember, the easiest way to make criminals out of ordinary people is to change legislation. Hitler made it an art form in his day.

Dear Di,

I was merely placing this useless dabate into context.

If society is prepared to promote certain laws/causes/activities devoid of the historical basis of existing statutes then a dis-service is rendered to all.

The law has two purposes, one of which is to set guidelines/ standards , the other relates to punitive measures for transgressing these standards.

Like adultery, gay sex is not the subject of many judicial processes, however, marital fidelity, along with responsible sexual activity (it's not a sport or recreational activity afterall??!!) is surely something we, as a society should value or aim for?

Should we legally recognise gay relationships (irrespective of age)? I say not, but, reducing or rationalising matters pertaining to marriage to cater for other causes is not the way forward.

Undermining wider legal rights, privilages and beliefs/values is not the way to win supporters. Providing a viable alternative that can get the support of the community / legislature may be a better way forward.

Reality Check

Where's Pete the Pedant when you need him? Not only does Reality Check make an incoherent argument (are you saying that sex outside of marriage shouldn't exist, therefore it should require no legislation...are you on drugs?), his/her spelling sucks.

Dear Rose,

sorry about the two spelling mistakes (privileges, and debate, mind you, you comments really transform this from Ali G 'dabate' to "derr-bate!)

I will type this slowly so that I don't make any typo's and so you may have a better chance of understanding the points I made.

What I was noting was that legislation sets standards & penalties and these are not currently being enforced. The reason these laws exist is no longer appreciated, so the debate about 'underage' sexual partners is moot unless you are a person in authority (eg. school teacher, minister of religion) as they are the only ones likely to be targeted by public opinion or lobby groups with an axe to grind.

Ideally and traditionally, sex should be in a monogamous, heterosexual union. This is clearly not the practice in many sexual encounters, arguably, more so in recent times. Therefore, the legal situation has limited application in value or practice.

(Typing extra slowly now...) To re-affirm the purpose & intent of the law & use it punitively is (sad to say?) not going to happen, so even if the age is raised, lowered or abandoned, unless it is going to be enforced and its context (marriage/families) and its didactic purpose (fidelity is good for you, your partner, children & the community, your health etc) is understood & accepted by the community, moaning about it makes no difference and it may as well be removed from the statutes.

Now, as to whether I want it to remain law & be enforced...another time perhaps.

Reality Check - love the irony of your moniker.

Now, human beings have always engaged in sexual encounters - not always in a marriage.

There have always been homosexuals - there always will be - homosexuality is common amongst other mammals as well as humans.

There are people who like to use sex to control others - unfortunately they will always exist. Therefore, we attempt to protect our young people from these predators by establishing an age of consent.

It is true that some people mature more quickly than others - there will never be a perfect age of consent however we need to draw the line somewhere and 16 is usually considered a reasonably mature age.

If you really believe that human beings everywhere will suddenly live in monogamous, hereosexual marriages without exception then, perhaps you should consider changing your name to "out of touch with reality".
Thank you

Dear Ringtail (now is there something more to your moniker?) you all keep missing the point. The question I keep posing is that as the age of consent only makes sense, legally & historically, in the context of marriage you cannot regulate illicit sexual activity (or give legal credence to gay sex, beastiality etc )under this law.

Now if you want to introduce new laws against child sexual abuse upon or between minors, animals etc then you are welcome to do so, but, don't water down existing laws, or if you must, then get rid of them & start again.

RealityCheck's attempts to use anal humour to divert our attention from his too clear hard line against both same-sex sexuality and extra-marital sex are pathetic. More important though is the very clear fact that legislation regarding age of consent has absolutely NOTHING to do with any legislation regarding marriage.

Age of consent is contained in each state's Criminal Code. That Code makes no reference to marriage - or to extra-marital sex for that matter.

RealityCheck must believe that repetition is a constant form of change, however repeating one narrow and bigotted viewpoint does not enhance this forum's discussion.

Now reality check gets to the point. Regardless of the fact that you are typing much slower, it still doesn't make your points any more succint. Beastiality? The age of consent between zebras is much lower than an elephant. Wot? Sex isn't recreation? or sport? I'd hardly call it housework myself. By the way, legislation doesn't "set" guidelines, it sets paramater outside of which we can all be accused of breaking the law.

Regarding your historical (hysterical?) viewpoint on marriage. You are either talking biblical or monarchial law, (in western society) which means a (historically/biblical female) being a chattel to the spouse and ultimately to the monarch. Interestingly, sex as a sport was always popular with monarchs and the religious hierarchy. so maybe you shouldn't push that barrow too far.

Gay sex, like adultery, is thankfully not the subject of too many judicial processes. Thank the lord. The days of stoning your very own Mary Magdalene are over in this society.

Your comment about legally recognising gay marriages (irrespective of age) reveals how little of the article you have taken in. Like Rose, I can only opine on the points that you actually articulate in a coherent sense. Lose the moniker RC.

Realty Chook - typo's are virtually unavoidable.

OK...call me thick! I finally get what you have been saying. Well, with due respect - you can stick your 'context' and 'didactic purpose' where the sun don't shine. It has no place in this debate. If you've just tuned in, my article was about the age of consent - ie: The Law AGAINST ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH MINORS UNDER 16 - that's all. Your right wing agenda nullifies your viewpoint so as to make it completely irrelevant and nonsensical - hence my confusion. If this law were ONLY relevant to marriage and fidelity (16's awfully young to be married dontcha think?), then our children would be left well and truly up the creek without a legislation. Stick to the facts, not the hypotheticals. Surely someone with your impressive grasp of legalese can wrap their frontal lobes around that. The goal is child protection - not marital conformity.

Dear "Equality Bigots"

- EB is the new label I am coining given you people are so quick to apply "GB" and rightwing to anyone that doesn't agree with your worldview -

Bravo! Despite your erroneous assumptions, your commentaries start to reflect that the age of consent was introduced to protect young women from premature marriage (ownership!) & sex. Well done.

As I stated earlier, if you wish to address other issues, draft new laws, or, as has happened, let them be removed from the statutes (sodomy laws) or remain inactive (through lack of enforcement).

In regard to my ideas being shoved where the sun don't shine, it would appear that such orifices are already too pre-occupied with anger & unjustified hatred, sports induced or otherwise.

Reality Checkout - do you or don't you want children protected from sexual predators?
And don't waffle on about marriage and removing sodomy laws, just answer this one question, please.

Ringer,

I believe that children are afforded the same rights under rape law as any person forced into sex without consent.

Raping someone closer to your age (or of the same sex) makes no difference and is no more or less repulsive.

Children are protected, but, unfortunately, are often exploited.

I think we could all agree in this debate than Reality in Denial (methinks RID for short) needs some frontal lobe lubrication. Interesting how rape comes into a gay debate about CONSENT. Good diatribe Rose and Ringtail. RID, I suggest you start undertaking a law degree. Surfing the net and getting "Reality bites" about different laws does not make a lawyer (not that i am one by the way). But it would seem, everyone in cyberspace is an expert. But not you so far.

Touche Di. lol.

Reality check, the age of consent law is not (only) about rape of young women or premature marriage. Unfortunately Sex with a minor can be consentual which is why there has to be laws against it for the protection of the vulnerable child. Stick with the facts and leave the red herrings to the rednecks - or you will be easily mistaken for one.

Oh, so we want laws to protect children, who with consent (despite 'immaturity') are exploited by predators (and society that knows no bounds)?

Now, is that merely related to the 'having' of sex, or the 'type' of sex, and how do we define what age/type is acceptable?

If someone is not mature enough to consent to sex, then are they mature enough to know that gay sex (or married life) is their 'best' option.

Consent does not validate the type of sex.

Hardline, no sex outside marriage, no gay sex, no sex under 16. This ain't going to happen, so just what is the message society wants to give (via education, media, law, actual practice)?

Law is irrelevant if its instructive purpose is denied and punitive purpose not pursued. Do we want to openly promote gay sex as a life affirming option and reality on par with marriage and now, de facto relationships. If we want current consent laws to reflect an equality - either in age &/or practice - then the first order issue - what sex is licit and how old do you need to be to know that?

End game; the law appears to be irrelevant,& is not stopping illegal sex. Is consent law a means of dealing with underage buggery? Is there any point retaining consent laws at all? Will we end up with the ridiculous outcome of ages as low as 12 or 10 eventually?

Sorry,the original thesis is sound. Sex, outside the context of marriage (ie partnering for child bearing & child raising), doesn't make sense in a legal (societal policy) sense unless we want to promote another particular lifestyle & outcome.

What age is a good age for child bearing & rearing? Ask any 15 year old mother and they would probably have preferred to wait a little bit longer to raise a child, but as for the sex, society is saying you don't have to wait or necessarily be cautious...in fact, why bother having one supportive, life long partner (of the opposite sex!?!)... such drudgery and historical nonsense!